| 1 |
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 13:32, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> First of all, I think most part of the code is just common sense. That's |
| 4 |
> also the reason that it is not explicit about many things. Strictly defined |
| 5 |
> rules don't apply in all situations, and jerks find ways around them or to |
| 6 |
> argue that the rule does not apply to them. |
| 7 |
I agree. |
| 8 |
-However I fail to see which channels are affected and which are not? |
| 9 |
-Who's going to enfore it(I just presumed it to be Devrel but it could also be |
| 10 |
the Council itself)? |
| 11 |
-What are the appeal options if any? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
And with only three days for commenting this seems like a rushed proposal that |
| 14 |
is better postponed to the next meeting. AFAIR we've had similar issues |
| 15 |
postponed just because of this deadline. Let's give all devs and near devs a |
| 16 |
chance to speak up. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> The modus operandi should be: "We (council) define what is acceptable |
| 19 |
> behaviour. If you don't like it, vote us off and get a "better" council. |
| 20 |
> Until that time, comply. To me that is the only way to avoid free for all. |
| 21 |
> We have seen that taping things over doesn't work. |
| 22 |
So the current situation is: We have both devs and non-devs disregard normal |
| 23 |
code of conduct. We have a written policy about dev behaviour but haven't |
| 24 |
enforced it on several occasions so now we are going to try regulating the |
| 25 |
users instead? Shouldn't we just try to behave ourselves before trying to |
| 26 |
make others behave? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
(no flames or blames intended, it's just how I see it) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> > Before getting into any detail, perhaps in another mail, I have one |
| 31 |
> > objection to this proposal. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> I don't see how this is an objection. It sound more like a remark or |
| 34 |
> observation. Naturally the enforcement needs to happen and infrastructure |
| 35 |
> must be supportive to that (e.g. by providing do-it-yourself tools to |
| 36 |
> devrel). |
| 37 |
As long as Devrel doesn't have the power to enforce it I don't see a point. If |
| 38 |
the Council has the power to enforce this fairly, then great. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> > I do support more power to Devrel but lets try to keep the house clean |
| 41 |
> > before we take care of the garden. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> Well, I don't consider -dev to be our garden, but rather gentoo's living |
| 44 |
> with an open door policy. Most participants are either devs, or are close |
| 45 |
> to being devs. In any case they are not general users. |
| 46 |
As for -dev you're right. But again the proposal is so vague it only mentions |
| 47 |
"Gentoo's official communication infrastructure". I take this to mean all |
| 48 |
mailing lists, forums, IRC. So in my eyes it will affect general users as |
| 49 |
well. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
> ps. I would also like to suggest that the devrels looks at things like |
| 52 |
> micro bans. That is, banning someone for a couple of days from sending to |
| 53 |
> the mailing list. This could be effective against e.g. people who continue |
| 54 |
> to feed trolls after being warned not to do so. |
| 55 |
Seems like a better and less heavy handed approach to me. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (Jaervosz) |
Archives